xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

What if former UK ambassador is right that Trump nuked Iran deal to spite Obama

A file photo taken on April 03, 2007 shows an Iranian flag fluttering outside the building housing the reactor of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in the Iranian port town of Bushehr. (Photo by Behrouz MEHRI / AFP)B
A file photo taken on April 03, 2007 shows an Iranian flag fluttering outside the building housing the reactor of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in the Iranian port town of Bushehr. (Photo by Behrouz MEHRI / AFP)B (Behrouz Mehri / AFP/Getty Images)

The article (“Leaked UK memo says Trump axed Iran deal to spite Obama," July 14), while not the top story of the day, could become the top story if the assertion by the now former ambassador, Nigel Kim Darroch, can be corroborated. The ambassador claims that the reason the president withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal was because it was former President Barack Obama’s deal. Period.

While we do not have a smoking gun, let’s consider the implications if it is corroborated. Many liberals think the Welfare Reform Act of 1994 was mistaken. I do not share that opinion. Remember, it was President Bill Clinton’s deal. So now use the criteria by which the ambassador says was the reason this president withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal to the welfare reform issue.

Advertisement

The next president after Clinton gets that reform overturned. It was roundly touted by Republicans as a good thing. But due to childish petulance, the next president overturns it. Does that sound like a wise course? How about the treaty to end the war with Japan in 1946? The next president using this criterion who hated the preceding president declares the war is not over. He orders the invasion of Japan. Sound like a wise way to go about things?

How about Israel’s Iron Dome Defense system? That is a missile system that Mr. Obama funded for Israel’s defense. The next president, using this petulant criterion, could have declared no more funding for that system. Sound like wise policy?

Advertisement
Advertisement

While the imagined reversals I indicate would be highly unlikely, one would think that reversing a treaty (the Iran deal) was unlikely a couple of years ago, but it happened. It happened, according to the ambassador, in a fit of childish petulance. The implications for continuing countenancing that kind of behavior is a troubling one, if not downright scary indeed.

But then again, implications, “schimplicaitions!” What do I care? I won’t be called to fight a possible war with Iran over the president’s action. I don’t get welfare, nor do I live in Israel. After all, I did get my measly tax cut.

Mel Mintz, Pikesville

Recommended on Baltimore Sun

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement